Re: [Wireshark-users] tshark or dumpcap ring buffer limitations

[Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org>]

Jeff Morriss wrote:
> > > I think a value of 50000 or 65535 would make sense for
> > > RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES. We could also just print a warning like "Wow!
> > > That's a lot of files!" instead of forcibly capping the value.
> > I would think that if we continue to support files:0 (unlimited files) 
> > then it makes more sense to just put out a warning.  That would be 
> > better than forcing them to choose between unlimited (and possibly 
> > running out of disk space) and N files (which, as in this users case, 
> > wasn't enough).
>
> Well, maybe not since we have to store all those file names...

I increased RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES to 100000 in r32998, along with
printing warnings when the number is large or if we change it.

-- 
Join us for Sharkfest ’10! · Wireshark® Developer and User Conference
Stanford University, June 14-17 · http://www.cacetech.com/sharkfest.10/
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe